Off-Topic: missiles and betrayals?

Hardy Lake Topics

(Hardy Lake Specific)

0 messages

Updated

Off-Topic

Lakes Online Forum

84,091 messages

Updated 11/8/2024 10:28:12 AM

Boat Maintenance

Lakes Online Forum

5,204 messages

Updated 9/14/2024 10:10:50 AM

Hardy Lake Fishing

(Hardy Lake Specific)

0 messages

Updated

Jokes

Lakes Online Forum

4,172 messages

Updated 9/9/2024 5:04:44 PM

Sports

Lakes Online Forum

4,262 messages

Updated 11/6/2024 6:43:09 PM

Grilling & Recipes

Lakes Online Forum

2,979 messages

Updated 6/26/2024 5:03:03 AM

Tallapoosa River Topics

Lakes Online Forum

98 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM

Forum Usage Rules

Welcome, Guest

Select View Mode: [ classic | beta | recent ]

	Name:	Yankee06
	Subject:	missiles and betrayals?
	Date:	9/19/2009 12:27:04 PM

Hey gang,
-These are interesting subjects. However, I promise this will be my last post under this topic. If we keep it up, we'll need to start a National Security Seminar group.
-Just a few comments;

-Brits and Aussies are our longest relationship: Yes, teh Brits are our longest relationship because they spawned us. However, our longest military allies or alliance (not continuously) relationship is with teh French and teh Poles. They both helped us win the revolutionary war. Yes, the Poles were here in teh very begining. (remember, there are more Poles in teh Chicago area then there are in Warsaw).

-Military equipment: yes, new countries we enter into alliances with want our equipment....and WE WANT them to have it. It is in OUR national security/military/economic interests to do. Having allied forces equipped with our materiale improves "interoperability" Interoperability streamlines supply lines, facilitates joint training, improves coordinated battle plans, etc.

-The US and Russia quid-pro-quo: I agree there was a quid-pro-quo between US and teh Russians. As mentioned above , the chief characteristic of cooperative relationships with an enemy or non-alliance member is qui-pro-quo. Thus that is what we had with Russia. The chief characteristic of alliance relationships is Shared goals/interests. Yes, there are often quid-pro-quo's down on teh tactical issue level, but the strategic level characteristic, the essentia characteristic, is shared goals/intersts.

-The ABM q-p-q; The US dropping of teh shield in East Europe for Russian assistance with Iran not to develop nukes is questionable-to-bad on so many levels...
1) it lessens NATO confidence in US leadership
2) it raises Russia to regional super power in Eurasia, not the US
3) it lessens US influence in Eurasia.
4) it increases Russian influence in teh mid-east
5) it lessens US influence in the mis-east
6) it negatively impacts US -Isreali relations
7) it lessens US influence throughout the rest of teh world

Now if the Russians succeed with the Iranians, many around teh world and at home will consider it a major accomplishment for mid-east and world security ...and for the Obama-Clinton foreign policy, ...and it will be. ...but the 7 negative aspects listed above will still remain.

Will it work? As mentioned in other posts, non-proliferation is no longer a strong world movement. When Iran views its strategic position what does it see? Pakistan has the bomb; India has teh bomb; Russia has teh bomb; Isreal has teh bomb. Thus a lot of people around Iran's borders have the bomb. What did Iran learn from the Iraq War? Among other things, Iran learned that the primary reason that Iraq was invaded was because Iraq did not have the bomb. So let's recap, all teh main players around Iran's borders have the bomb, and teh primary reason Iraq was invaded was that it didn't have the bomb, ...what will Iran do........